The Second Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) held in New York on 7-8 March 2011, in its conclusion invited Member States to submit their views on the expected outcome, including structure and content, of the upcoming UNCSD 2012 (Rio+20 Summit). The Government of the Republic of Indonesia remains committed to the implementation of sustainable development and welcomes this opportunity.

The content of this submission is divided into two sections. First, the Chair?s Summary of the High-Level Dialogue on Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development (HLD-IFSD) held in Solo on 19-21 July 2011, jointly hosted by the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Rio+20 Secretariat. Second, views of the Government of the Republic of Indonesia on the expected outcome of the Rio+20 Summit.

As the host of the TUNZA Children and Youth International Conference 2011, jointly organized by the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and UNEP, Indonesia would also like to present the Bandung Declaration as appears in the Annex.

I. REPORT OF THE HIGH-LEVEL DIALOGUE ON INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

1. The High Level Dialogue on the Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development (IFSD) was held in Solo, Central Java, Indonesia on 19-21 July 2011. It was jointly hosted by the Government of Indonesia and the Rio+20 Secretariat, and chaired by H.E Prof. Dr. Gusti Muhammad Hatta, Minister for Environment of the Republic of Indonesia. Participants included UN Under Secretary General and Secretary General of the Rio+20 Conference, Ambassador Sha Zukang, as well as representatives of 74 member states, 29 IGOs and major groups, and key UN system entities, including UNDESA, UNDP, UNEP, ILO, UNESCO, UNESCAP, and UN-Habitat.

2. The objective of the Dialogue was to support the preparatory process for Rio+20 by providing a forum for delegates and invited experts to share views and hold frank discussions, in a non-negotiations context, on the pros and cons of various options and proposals. IFSD is one of the two themes of the Rio+20 Conference, agreed in GA Resolution 64/236, with the objective of securing renewed political commitment for sustainable development, assessing the progress to date, and the remaining gaps in the implementation of the outcomes of the major summits on sustainable development, and addressing new and emerging challenges.

3. The discussion reviewed progress in institutional development at global as well as regional, national and subnational levels. While the starting point was provided by the stated positions of different countries and groups, the discussions saw genuine engagement and even progress in identifying possible steps towards convergence. The seven key messages from the Dialogue were summarized by the host and Chair, H.E Prof. Dr. Gusti Muhammad Hatta, Minister for Environment of Indonesia, under the title ?Solo Message?.

4. The discussions reiterated the principles and the vision of past agreements on sustainable development, especially Agenda 21 and JPOI; reviewed progress made in institutional development for sustainable development at various levels; identified remaining problems including implementation gaps, lack of coherence, and the added pressure of emerging challenges; recalled lessons from experience of related areas of institutional change; built upon contribution of prior intergovernmental examinations of these questions; and undertook an examination of various proposals aired at the meeting or earlier during the Rio+20 preparatory process.

5. Principles: There was a broadly shared view that the concept and principles of sustainable development had gained acceptability in policy circles as well as civil society. Various participants reiterated the principles of sustainable development, as articulated in Agenda 21 and JPOI, including the integrated pursuit of all three pillars of sustainable development in a balanced and mutually reinforcing manner, the principles of common but differentiated responsibilities, national sovereignty over natural resources, enhanced participation of civil society organizations, promotion of science-based policy-making, and the shared commitment to capacity building, financial resource mobilization, and technology transfer.

6. Progress and gaps in IFSD: Two points were highlighted by virtually all participants, namely integration and implementation. Governments noted that the current institutional framework for sustainable development was inadequate compared to the mounting challenges, lacked effective mechanisms for monitoring or ensuring the implementation of agreed commitments, had led to fragmentation rather than coherence and integration. Fragmentation amongst existing institutions at the national, regional and global levels should be eliminated. A more effective arrangement needs to be built in order to provide leadership and direction to tackle global environmental challenges. Participants also expressed support for coherence among the three pillars. However, as the three pillars are not currently at the same level of advancement, this poses some challenges. Participants also highlighted some areas of progress, including in intergovernmental processes especially CSD and ECOSOC, UN programmes especially UNEP, UNDP.

7. Balancing Bottom up and Top Down Approaches: A particular question that was highlighted in the discussions was the need for a bottom up approach to coherence and integration, starting at national and local levels. It was emphasized that sustainable development actions at the local and national levels need to be governed nationally and locally, instead of being governed from the global level. This will allow for coherence of sustainable development policies to take place at the local and national levels. In this regard, traditional knowledge, local wisdom and strong enforcements were noted as key success factors. Some participants also argued that there is a need for an appropriate framework for guiding institutional development, in order that there was coherence in the support provided to countries. Others argued that both ?top down? and ?bottom up? approaches were needed to harmonize and integrate decisions taken at the global, regional, national and local contexts. This is because decisions taken in the global context cannot automatically be implemented at the national or local levels. There needs to be a dynamic interaction between all these levels, such that what is needed at the local, national and regional levels can be brought up to the global level for deliberations.

8. Challenges: Participants highlighted the need to respond effectively to the challenges posed to economic growth by emerging scarcities of natural resources and sinks. To this end, the discussions endorsed the need for local, national, sub- regional, regional and global institutions for mainstreaming policies for sustainable utilization of natural resources, integrated resource management, and mechanisms for protecting vulnerable and poor persons.

9. Lessons from Experience: Significant lessons from experience have accumulated since the Earth Summit. These include the role and contributions of CSD, ECOSOC, UNEP, UNDP, MEA Secretariats, Regional Commissions, Funds and Programmes, UN Specialized Agencies, and IFIs. In addition, institutional changes include the establishment of UN-Women and the Human Rights Council, coordinating frameworks (UN-Energy, UN-Oceans, and UN-Water), the Delivering-as-One mechanism for coordinating support at national levels, and several models for national and local action.

10. Proposals: Discussions highlighted the importance of coordination and coherence at the sub-regional, regional and global levels. Coherence within and amongst UN agencies to Deliver-as-One was also emphasized. To this end, it was noted that a strong governance structure, coupled with enhanced engagement of major groups at these levels were amongst the top priority areas in strengthening the three pillars.

Main Points of Progress in Discussions

11. Linkages among the three pillars: The discussion reviewed the relative merits of three main options?strengthening CSD, adjusting the mandate of ECOSOC, and establishing a Sustainable Development Council. The main area of progress was the evidence of heightened interest in the third option by all groups of countries. Participants also expressed support for increasing coherence in all the three pillars, with work specific to any one pillar systematically considering the inter-linkages with the other two.

12. Strengthening UNEP: The discussion reiterated the consensus on this issue, and discussed options, including a specialized agency status for UNEP, establishment of a World Environment Organization (WEO), and instituting piecemeal reforms within the existing structure. The main area of progress was a greater willingness by all groups of countries to explore the question of a specialized agency status.

13. Delivering as One: This was a major advance. The discussions highlighted the need to balance a top down approach to sustainable development with a bottom up approach based on the expressed needs of countries. In this regard, there was significant engagement to enhance the coherence of international support to national sustainable development plans.

14. Science-Policy Interface: While the discussions reiterated the need to strengthen the linkages between science and policy, there was intensive engagement on the idea of an Inter-governmental Panel on Sustainable Development (IPSD), along the lines of the IPCC, and the newly established IPBES. There was no consensus on either the feasibility or the structure of such an arrangement, but several questions were brought up, and answers to these questions may help advance the agenda.

15. Financing: There was a serious discussion on a dedicated fund for sustainable development, a new and additional finance needed for implementation and the use of innovative sources of financing to complement ODA. However, further discussion is needed before the way forward becomes clear.

16. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): There was a significant interest on the discussion on the Sustainable Development Goals. In the context of goals related, in particular, to the sustainable energy goals advanced by the SG?s Advisory Group, there was a feeling that negotiating specific goals would bog down the negotiations. However, there may be a good chance for an agreement in principle on the development of Sustainable Development Goals.

17. National Level Institutions: The discussions suggested a convergence towards a view that sustainable development was not a separate track for national action, but rather it was the only track. This implies the need for more systematic mainstreaming of a sustainable development perspective into the work of the key economic ministries.

18. Involving non-State Actors: The important contribution of the Earth Summit 1992 was to enhance the engagement between governments and Major Groups, namely non-State actors. With this in mind, participants supported strengthening this engagement as a means of strengthening both decision making and implementation of sustainable development.

Solo Message

19. The Chair provided the following messages to move the discussions on IFSD forward:

First : To achieve our shared goal, we need to renew our political commitment for sustainable development. We also need to translate this commitment into implementation.

Second: We need to ensure that the economic, social and environmental pillars work together with each pillar integrating the goals of the two other pillars.

Third: At the international level, we need an organization to enhance the integration of sustainable development. Various options were discussed, ranging from an enhanced mandate for ECOSOC and reviewing the role of CSD, to the establishment of a Sustainable Development Council.

Fourth: At the national level, there is a need for more integrated support for national strategies. Various options were discussed, including Delivering as One.

Fifth: There is a need to strengthen UNEP and a number of options were discussed.

Sixth: More broadly, sustainable development governance at the local, national and regional level needs to be reviewed, supported and strengthened.

Seventh: Adequte and additional financing is necessary to enable implementation for capacity building and technology transfer.

II. INDONESIA?S VIEWS ON THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE UNCSD 2012 (RIO+20)

A. GENERAL VIEWS

1. For almost 20 years after the UN Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit), we have produced significant documents relating to sustainable development, namely Agenda 21 and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation. Nevertheless, largely significant progress has not met the basic objectives of the two documents, which are mainly to achieve growth equality, poverty eradication, including timely achievement of MDGs as well as environmental protection.

2. We see that after a decade of implementing the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, there is a glaring gap between the sustainable development objectives and its implementation. Therefore, we urge the world leaders to renew their political commitments, and clearly translate the commitments into concrete actions.

B. WHAT DO WE EXPECT FROM RIO?

3. The output of Rio+20 should enable countries to more effectively implement sustainable development objectives in order to produce a more fair and equitable global economic and societal context. Furthermore, as we believe in the principle of ?common but differentiated responsibilities?, which means there is no ?one size fits all? approach, the means of implementation from the Rio+20 outcome should take into account the national institutional system , more adapted to deal with existing political instruments and national needs, particularly in regard to development, decent jobs creation, poverty eradication, people?s accesability to Information, equitable and sustainable use of resources. Therefore, we recognize that both the bottom up, and top down approaches are necessary to address the present and future issues in order to reach sustainable development goals.

4. To ensure achievement on sustainable development, the Rio+20 outcome should also address the international and national institutional arrangement to integrate the three pillars of sustainable development as well as to address the issue of financing, technological transfer, and capacity building to support the implementation of sustainable policies, particularly for developing countries. The above approach creates the possibility to prioritize concrete global and national steps for implementation as well as the effort to establish a national timeline in achieving sustainable development goals.

5. Rio+20 Summit should also take into consideration the current and future global dynamics and its challenges and other emerging issues, such as: the reconfiguration of global governance, economic transition, the threat of global economic recession, food and energy security, access to water, etc.

6. We need to respond effectively to the challenges posed to economic growth, emerging scarcities of natural resources and sinks, poverty and the need for local, national, sub-regional, regional and global institutions to mainstreaming policies for sustainable utilization of natural resources, integrated resource management, and mechanisms for protecting vulnerable and poor persons.

7. Indonesia considers that key issues that need to be addressed at the Conference, amongst others are:

a. Addressing the remaining gaps in the implementation of sustainable development, that include:

? Improvement of the effectiveness of support deliveries for sustainable development programs in developing countries, including finance, access to technology development and transfer, and enhancing capacity building.

? Provision of new and additional financial resources to support the achievement of sustainable development objectives in developing countries.

? Address coherence and coordination among existing institutions and initiatives.

b. Renew political commitment to ensure the delivery of international commitments and agreements on sustainable development

c. Address emerging challenges:

? food security

? energy security

? access to water

? sustainable management of coastal and marine resources

C. STRUCTURE OF THE OUTCOME

8. Indonesia proposes the below outline as the structure of the outcome document for Rio+20 follow:

a. Introduction/chapeau

b. Statement with Key Messages from the past to the future

c. Social and Economic Dimensions

d. Conservation and Management of Resources

e. Strengthening institutional framework and the role of major groups

f. Means of Implementation

g. Emerging Challenges

h. Policy Recommendation and Plan of Action
D. GREEN ECONOMY

9. Indonesia considers the Green Economy as a development paradigm that hinges on resources efficiency, which eventually would lead to more sustainable consumption and production patterns. In the same spirit, Indonesia?s development is based on a four track strategy of pro-poor, pro-job, pro-growth and pro-environment to ensure that economic growth, as one of the pillars, moves in concert with the other elements of sustainable development.

10. Indonesia is of the view that the transition to the green economy requires behavioral changes across all sectors. Targeted sectors could include among others agriculture, buildings, urban energy, fisheries, forestry, manufacturing, tourism and transport. Green economy initiatives should promote economic transformation not only in terms of resource efficiency, but also in building a pathway towards poverty eradication and environmental sustainability.

11. For the green economy to thrive requires collective vision, creativity, action, and support from all stakeholders, including the private sector. Therefore the outcome should explore the importance of further collaboration and partnership between the public and private sectors in promoting the green economy. The process should be able to contribute tangibly to the global effort in promoting the green economy, taking into account the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.

12. Measures taken to promote and/or implement the green economy should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination, or a disguised restriction on international trade, or prescribe new conditionalities on Official Development Assistance (ODA), or any other development aid. Moreover, with a view to enabling developing nations to fully embrace the concept of the green economy, new breakthroughs and concrete action in financial support, technology development and transfer as well as capacity building is vital.

13. It is important to recognize the significance of sustainable consumption and production (SCP) in the pursuit for sustainable development. The SCP concept promotes resource efficiency with a strong emphasis on internalizing the value of natural resources and environment; efforts to eradicate poverty; creating decent jobs; and ensuring sustainable economic growth. In this regard, Indonesia is of the view that an agreement on the Global 10-Year Framework of Programmes on SCP would be a useful contribution by Rio+20 Summit to support the transition to the green economy.

14. It is also important to ensure green economy policy meets its intended aims of economic and environmental sustainability and social equity, thus encouraging the involvement of broad basic public participation and support from empowered civil society actors and other stakeholders.

15. Furthermore, the challenges to implement the green economy should be solved by mainstreaming the green economy into national development planning whereby its implementation should consider national circumstances.

E. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (IFSD)

16. Strong governance is critical for advancing sustainable development. A coherent and coordinated institutional framework for sustainable development (IFSD) at local, national, regional and global levels can greatly contribute to address remaining gaps in the implementation of sustainable development objectives as well as to address emerging challenges. Therefore, it is important to launch a comprehensive process to strengthen the IFSD in order to enable the full, effective and sustained implementation of sustainable development. The strengthening of the institutional framework for sustainable development should mobilize potential cooperation at the local, national and regional level.

17. Indonesia is of the view that an umbrella organization is required to enhance the integration of sustainable development at the international level. Indonesia perceives that a permanent council on sustainable development is the most viable option to increase coherence and coordination among all international institutions that deal with the three pillars of sustainable development. Therefore, Indonesia supports the establishment of a Sustainable Development Council (SDC).

18. Key arguments behind Indonesia?s support for the proposal on SDC:

a. The proposal should not be understood as the creation of a new organization, but rather as an approach to integrate existing institutions in addressing sustainable development.

b. SDC as an umbrella organization would coordinate with related institutions including MEAs, with emphasis on mutually reinforcing and integrating the three pillars of sustainable development.

19. It is our hope that our view will provide substantial contribution to the content of the zero draft for the Rio+20 outcome documents, and accelerate the implementation of Sustainable Development Principles.

The Voice of Children and Youth for Rio+20

2011 Tunza International Children and Youth Conference Bandung Declaration
October 1, 2011

§1 We, the delegates to the 2011 Tunza International Children and Youth Conference representing 118 different countries, are united in calling upon world leaders to move to a sustainable development pathway that safeguards the Earth and its people for our generation and generations to come. We urge governments to respond to and not ignore the demands of the children and youth.
Section 1: Rio+20 and the Promises to Our Generation

§2 Next year, our leaders will meet in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to critically assess and
accelerate our progress towards sustainable development. The ?Rio+20? gathering
will mark a generation since the 1992 Earth Summit ? the first effective global
recognition of the environmental, social and economic costs of unrestrained
development.

§3 While we were not at the Earth Summit in 1992, we know that it was
transformative. As a result, sustainable development has become a critical
component in the protection of the environment and the eradication of poverty.
We have met the children and youth who stood there and called to the moral
consciences of our leaders and citizens to act.

§4 We have also read of the promises made and that continue to be made to us, the
inheriting generation, which remain unfulfilled. Our governments have promised to
reduce poverty, stem environmental degradation and enhance equity. They have
promised to combat climate change, ensure food security, provide clean drinking
water and protect our planet?s biodiversity. Businesses and multi­national
corporations have pledged to respect the environment, green their production and
compensate for their pollution.

§5 Yet, our planet?s future ? our future ? is in peril. Our generation has seen the warning signs in Rio 1992 become the realities that face Rio+20: poverty, climate change, pollution and depleting natural resources are all symptoms of our unsustainable development patterns. We feel, understand and know that we cannot wait another generation, until a Rio+40, before we act.
Section 2: What We Are Going to Do

§6 We are the next generation of decision­makers and we stand for action and change. Therefore, we pledge the following commitments to make the Rio+20 Earth Summit a milestone for change.

§7 1. Lobby our governments to make Rio+20 Earth Summit a top priority. We will identify our governments? positions, listen to their commitments and hold them accountable to us. We will demand that our governments, leaders of the private sector and civil society groups attend the Summit and make ambitious commitments now. We will call upon governments to formulate and implement sustainable development policies, which also address poverty eradication and are supported by strong enforcement mechanisms.

§8 2. Adopt more sustainable lifestyles and educate our local communities, including indigenous communities, sharing knowledge at the same level. All action starts with the individual and we are committed to reducing our personal ecological footprint. We will teach and encourage each other to be responsible consumers using all available tools. Yet, many young people remain unaware of basic environmental issues because of inadequate schooling. We will demand that environmental education and awareness raising be mandatory in each of our schools? curriculum.

§9 3. Work toward sustainable development through a green economy transition. We know that young entrepreneurs are now developing the new approaches needed for this transition and we will support each other as our generation develops sustainable technologies and processes. We will ask educational institutions to invest in these activities. We will urge governments and civil society to support young entrepreneurs and innovators that work towards sustainable development. We will support businesses that are environmentally responsible. We will lobby governments to pass laws and to put in place higher taxes on products that don?t conform to this. We will continue to realize our vision of a sustainable
world.

§10 4. Contribute to local, national, regional and global discussions on sustainable development. We will demand to ensure children and youth participation in all decision­making processes at all levels. We will support institutions that balance development and the preservation of resources for future generations, and oppose any government or corporation that violates this principle. We will use every opportunity to convey our message to push Rio+20 leaders to take tangible action at the end of the conference. We will encourage that concrete actions be taken to conserve the environment such as the World City Forest initiated at the TUNZA International Children and Youth Conference 2011.

Section 3: What Green Economy Means to Children and Youth

§11 We believe a green economy values human well­being, social equity, economic growth and environmental protection on an equal basis. It is an integrated framework for sustainability that meets the needs of the present while providing for future generations.

§12 Nearly half of the world?s population is under the age of 25 and most live in developing countries. It is crucial to invest in education, employment and empowerment of children and youth in the green economy. This will both enable them to live productive and worthwhile lives while contributing to a just green economy transition. We agree with the United Nations Secretary­General: failing to invest in children and youth is a false economy.

§13 Every region, country and community will have its own unique green economy. Yet, we urge the Rio+20 Earth Summit to agree that all green economies should:

o Endeavour to enrich the well­being and dignity of all people, both economically and in terms of quality of life;

o Protect and value natural resources and ecosystems, on which all life depends, and recognize the traditional knowledge and practices of indigenous peoples and local communities;

o Invest in education and social entrepreneurship which engenders sustainable development values;

o Promote good governance, accountability and corporate social responsibility; and

o Engage citizens to protect the environment in their everyday lives.

Section 4: Governments and Corporations Need to Come to Rio and Deliver

§14 We cannot wait any longer: we must act now to move swiftly and decisively on a green economy path toward sustainable development. While recognizing that each nation must chart its own way, we call upon world leaders to come to Rio to collectively reinvest political will in:

o Implementing effective corporate social and environmental responsibility through a new economic model that ensures sustainable resource use;

o Being accountable for the sustainability of their supply chain and production patterns;

o Providing training, education and funding support for children and youth and communities to work toward a green economy;

o Increasing investment in environmentally­beneficial scientific research and development; and

o Raising community awareness of the damages of unsustainable business practices.

Section 5: What Governance Means to Children and Youth

§16 We know firsthand that the adoption of international Plans of Action at the 1992 Earth Summit, such as Agenda 21, did not automatically result in real change where it matters ? in countries, corporations, campuses and communities. In fact, weak implementation, corruption and the lack of transparency and accountability have hindered much­needed progress towards a sustainable future. We know there are already hundreds of international agreements to protect the environment, but many do not deliver on the ground.

§17 At the Rio+20 Earth Summit, we need to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the established international institutions and assess new institutional structures that guide us toward a sustainable green and fair economy. We believe such structures should:

o Strive always for peace and cooperation among people from all nations;

o Focus on implementation of existing international agreements and plans of action;

o Hold governments at all levels, corporations and civil society organizations accountable to their promises and obligations on sustainable development;

o Strengthen and ensure effective children and youth participation within the United Nations system;

o Further the implementation of the precautionary principle and demand reparations of damages, such as applied to new technologies and practices; and

o Adopt ambitious Sustainable Development Goals and hold all governments accountable for their achievement.

§18 We also know that it does not stop there. We must support national and local governance reform as well. We believe that good governance at the country, state, province and city levels should:

o Secure public access to Information and environmental justice;

o Meaningfully engage all stakeholders in the decision­making process, considering the views and opinions of minorities, underprivileged, illiterate, and unemployed young people;

o Fight corruption wherever it exists; and

o Protect and defend the rights of young and future generations.

§19 This is our declaration to fight for environmental justice not only for us but for all generations to come.